Testing for local adaptation in adult male and female fitness among populations evolved under different mate competition regimes

Yun, Li; Bayoumi, M. S.; Yang, Seon; Chen, Patrick J; Rundle, Howard D.; Agrawal, Aneil F.

doi:10.1111/evo.13787

Cited by 17 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 74 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We have particularly strong reasons to believe this for males. In a different experiment, populations that evolved for a few tens of generations in environments similar to those examined here had diverged significantly for male fitness in a genotype-x-environment dependent manner (Yun et al 2019), presumably because these alternative mating environments modulate the opportunity for male harassment to result in successful mating (Yun et al 2017). In contrast to males, females showed much weaker signs of divergence following adaptation to these alternative environments.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 87%

An investigation of the sex-specific genetic architecture of fitness inDrosophila melanogaster

Singh

Hasan

Agrawal

2022

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In dioecious populations, the sexes employ divergent reproductive strategies to maximize fitness and, as a result, genetic variants can affect fitness differently in males and females. Moreover, recent studies have highlighted an important role of the mating environment in shaping the strength and direction of sex-specific selection. Here, we measure the sex-specific outbred fitness of 357 lines from the Drosophila Synthetic Population Resource (DSPR) in two different mating environments. We analyze the data using three different approaches to gain insight into the sex-specific genetic architecture for fitness: classical quantitative genetics, genomic associations, and a mutational burden approach. The quantitative genetics analysis finds that, on average segregating genetic variation in this population has concordant fitness effects both across the sexes and across mating environments. We do not find specific genomic regions with strong associations with either sexually antagonistic (SA) or sexually concordant (SC) fitness effects, yet there is modest evidence of an excess of genomic regions with weak associations, both with SA and SC fitness effects. Our examination of mutational burden indicates stronger selection against indels and loss-of-function variants in females than males.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 87%

An investigation of the sex-specific genetic architecture of fitness inDrosophila melanogaster

Singh

Hasan

Agrawal

2022

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…S1 in Yun et al. 2019). Previous work with the current population also revealed a positive correlation between resting metabolic rate and locomotor activity in males (Videlier et al.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%

Quantifying selection on standard metabolic rate and body mass in Drosophila melanogaster

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Standard metabolic rate (SMR), defined as the minimal energy expenditure required for self‐maintenance, is a key physiological trait. Few studies have estimated its relationship with fitness, most notably in insects. This is presumably due to the difficulty of measuring SMR in a large number of very small individuals. Using high‐throughput flow‐through respirometry and a Drosophila melanogaster laboratory population adapted to a life cycle that facilitates fitness measures, we quantified SMR, body mass, and fitness in 515 female and 522 male adults. We used a novel multivariate approach to estimate linear and nonlinear selection differentials and gradients from the variance‐covariance matrix of fitness, SMR, and body mass, allowing traits specific covariates to be accommodated within a single model. In males, linear selection differentials for mass and SMR were positive and individually significant. Selection gradients were also positive but, despite substantial sample sizes, were nonsignificant due to increased uncertainty given strong SMR‐mass collinearity. In females, only nonlinear selection was detected and it appeared to act primarily on body size, although the individual gradients were again nonsignificant. Selection did not differ significantly between sexes although differences in the fitness surfaces suggest sex‐specific selection as an important topic for further study.

show abstract

“…The best examples of studies of sexual conflict have been done under laboratory conditions (e.g. [79]) and the simple environment in the laboratory may exacerbate sexual conflict compared to more complex natural settings [80,81]. This means that quantification of the degree and genetic architecture of sexual conflict in natural populations remains unclear in both plants and animals.…”

Section: Plants May Have Less Sexual Conflict…mentioning

confidence: 99%

Are plant and animal sex chromosomes really all that different?

Mank

2022

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sex chromosomes in plants have often been contrasted with those in animals with the goal of identifying key differences that can be used to elucidate fundamental evolutionary properties. For example, the often homomorphic sex chromosomes in plants have been compared to the highly divergent systems in some animal model systems, such as birds, Drosophila and therian mammals, with many hypotheses offered to explain the apparent dissimilarities, including the younger age of plant sex chromosomes, the lesser prevalence of sexual dimorphism, or the greater extent of haploid selection. Furthermore, many plant sex chromosomes lack complete sex chromosome dosage compensation observed in some animals, including therian mammals, Drosophila, some poeciliids, and Anolis , and plant dosage compensation, where it exists, appears to be incomplete. Even the canonical theoretical models of sex chromosome formation differ somewhat between plants and animals. However, the highly divergent sex chromosomes observed in some animal groups are actually the exception, not the norm, and many animal clades are far more similar to plants in their sex chromosome patterns. This begs the question of how different are plant and animal sex chromosomes, and which of the many unique properties of plants would be expected to affect sex chromosome evolution differently than animals? In fact, plant and animal sex chromosomes exhibit more similarities than differences, and it is not at all clear that they differ in terms of sexual conflict, dosage compensation, or even degree of divergence. Overall, the largest difference between these two groups is the greater potential for haploid selection in plants compared to animals. This may act to accelerate the expansion of the non-recombining region at the same time that it maintains gene function within it. This article is part of the theme issue ‘Sex determination and sex chromosome evolution in land plants’.

show abstract

Testing for local adaptation in adult male and female fitness among populations evolved under different mate competition regimes

Cited by 17 publications

References 74 publications

An investigation of the sex-specific genetic architecture of fitness inDrosophila melanogaster

An investigation of the sex-specific genetic architecture of fitness inDrosophila melanogaster

Quantifying selection on standard metabolic rate and body mass in Drosophila melanogaster

Are plant and animal sex chromosomes really all that different?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About